Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 199 posts

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#71

Post by Animats »

"AI", and even robotics, are terrible at construction and maintenance. Most housing-related problems are in that category. It's not at all clear how LLM-type AI can help much. There are at least 18 humanoid robots on YouTube, but we don't see them doing much useful manipulation.

That's the part that needs to scale up.

That YC startup working on robotic construction equipment is a step in the right direction. But it's mostly automatic driving.

About twenty years ago, someone hooked a backhoe up to a force feedback hand input device, so you could dig by making clawing motions with your hand. The neat thing was that you could feel your way around pipes and rocks. Never got beyond a prototype. If AI manipulation gets any good, that sort of thing should be a robot.

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#72

Post by bakuninsbart »

arkis22 wrote: post #23
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

I'd rather just have a world where people move a little slower, care less about efficiency, appreciate the smaller things in life, and stop forcing endless upgrades of every kind on everyone with new phones, new apps, soulless art, and new ways of doing things. But that's just me.

What's really ironic, based on my understanding, is that the world that you have expressed a desire for, is much likelier in a world where economic growth accelerates based on AI. Granted, you need to have the political structure in place that allows the growth to benefit everyone.

> Granted, you need to have the political structure in place that allows the growth to benefit everyone.

Which is the scary part of the AI revolution. Devaluing labor always leads to increased inequality in the short-to-mid term until a new equilibrium is met. But what if we have machines that can do most jobs for 10-20k a year? Suddenly we have a hard ceiling for everyone below a certain "skill level", where skill includes things like owning capital, going to the right college, and having the right parents.

In the past, when inequality became too extreme, (the threat of) violent uprisings usually led to reform, but with autonomous weapon systems, drones and droids, manpower becomes less of a concern. The result might be a permanent underclass.

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#73

Post by lnfromx »

jrflowers wrote: post #33
crazygringo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technological advancements create wealth by increasing efficiency. Not really sure what deeper explanation you're looking for? It's no different from the cotton gin or steam engine or railroads. Obviously, if you don't think AI results in greater efficiency then there wouldn't be more wealth. But that's a tech question, not an econ question. The economic side of things couldn't be simpler.

> by increasing efficiency Efficiency of what exactly? And how do they do that? All of the NFT-turned-AI bros insist that the answers to those questions are “everything” and “by being awesome”, which sounds more like the thinking of someone that’s convinced they’re on the precipice of inventing magic or figuring out how to directly petition god

Looking at e.g. the Solow Model better technology will indeed increase efficiency as the output per worker increases which will lead to economic growth. However I think you are right. This is an oversimplification with regards to AI because in the end its also about which products are being impacted. Also the product quality is left out in that scenario so it gets tricky. E.g. I would personally not like to read even one AI generated book as of today.

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#74

Post by [deleted] »

stocksinsmocks wrote: post #42
dcreater wrote: post #12

I am yet to see any strong micro econ or macro econ mechanistic explanation detailing how AI is going to create more wealth.

Paid services becoming basically free is wealth creation. You have the goods but none of the old cost of production. This is patently obvious, so I assume there’s some well-practiced remarks inspired by or borrowed from early 20th century socialists you would like to share? HN comments wouldn’t be complete with an homage to the class struggle. I would rather take the win and be happy about it.

[deleted]

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#75

Post by klipklop »

lossolo wrote: post #51
karim79 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose, if a huge proportion of workers get replaced by AI software, leading to mass unemployment, there will be impetus for governments to step in and force corporations to contribute to some sort of UBI or social wealth fund. If AI grabs everything and few consumers are left then it is zero-sum. I'm looking forward to seeing how this might play out. Pessimistically, it seems very bubblish.

> I suppose, if a huge proportion of workers get replaced by AI software, leading to mass unemployment, there will be impetus for governments to step in and force corporations to contribute to some sort of UBI or social wealth fund. I looked for any comments that expressed this sentiment, and as of writing this, I only found one. It's like people don't know or remember history. I mean, look at the French Revolution—l…

> Leaving that kind of power in the hands of the wealthiest 1% means only one thing: over time, 100% of land and resources would end up controlled by that 1%, the new kings, making the rest of the society their slaves forever.

Isn’t this exactly what has happened all through out history? I don’t really see the future playing out any differently.

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#76

Post by spwa4 »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #72
arkis22 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really ironic, based on my understanding, is that the world that you have expressed a desire for, is much likelier in a world where economic growth accelerates based on AI. Granted, you need to have the political structure in place that allows the growth to benefit everyone.

> Granted, you need to have the political structure in place that allows the growth to benefit everyone. Which is the scary part of the AI revolution. Devaluing labor always leads to increased inequality in the short-to-mid term until a new equilibrium is met. But what if we have machines that can do most jobs for 10-20k a year? Suddenly we have a hard ceiling for everyone below a certain "skill level", where skill i…

Really? The AI revolution is happening in the West, and mostly in the US. Just imagine it happened in a muslim country, or Russia, or China, or even India. Half of them would immediately use it to start a war. If you think labor is devalued here, it can be SO much worse.

Also I don't understand the entire argument. The thread is about stopping economic growth. You say you don't receive enough of the current economic growth ... so you want growth to reduce? That will make your life a lot worse, won't it? At 0 growth the only way to give you anything would be to take it away from someone else. In other words: you want an extra meal at 0% growth? That can only happen if someone else doesn't get one ...

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#77

Post by spwa4 »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #53
sampton wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say that until they are asked to pay more and earn less.

Well, I had a high-paying job, six figures. But that six-figures came with less freedom, higher-paced work, life bureacracy, and I wasn't happy. I had no time or mental space to just sit and think. Probably the least happy I was in my entire life. So I quit. Now, I do live a slower-paced life, and earn very little. But I'm the happiest I've ever been. But YMMV I guess.

Out of the 2 things asked for: paying more while earning less, paying more is the more critical of them ...

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#78

Post by _nalply »

Nevermark wrote: post #26
mg wrote: post #20

The biggest change I anticipate is larger cities. When I ask people what they would like to change about their life, pretty much everyone mentions that their apartment is too small and too expensive. Because everyone wants to live right in the center of a big city. While at the same time, when I look at Google maps, big cities are tiny. I zoom out a bit and every big city is just a tiny speck in the middle of nowhere…

If land was taxed (the physically exclusionary resource that should be taxed), but property/development on it was not, the economics of building big and building up would be much cheaper. No more annual wealth tax (on the same value, year after year!) on development. And holding land to parasitically benefit from neighbors improving the neighborhood would become unprofitable. With land no longer a money parking/hedgi…

That's Henry George.

I don't understand all consequences yet, except one, that the wealthy and powerful object to it because it hurts them and so the Land Value Tax is rarely introduced. Even if it gets introduced, it will abolished soon thereafter.

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#79

Post by danaris »

whatshisface wrote: post #44
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

I'd rather just have a world where people move a little slower, care less about efficiency, appreciate the smaller things in life, and stop forcing endless upgrades of every kind on everyone with new phones, new apps, soulless art, and new ways of doing things. But that's just me.

Efficiency improvements tend not to create more leisure time, because one person working eight hours a day remains more efficient than two people each working four hours a day. The reasons behind this are communication and training overheads. If AI leads to a world where people don't really have to know anything to do their jobs - just provide high-level judgements that LLMs seem farther away from than they are from…

> Efficiency improvements tend not to create more leisure time, because one person working eight hours a day remains more efficient than two people each working four hours a day.

Efficiency improvements tend not to create more leisure time because the gains all go to the people at the top.

Just like they have for 40 years.

Re: What if AI made the world’s economic growth explode?

#80

Post by Nevermark »

_nalply wrote: post #78
Nevermark wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If land was taxed (the physically exclusionary resource that should be taxed), but property/development on it was not, the economics of building big and building up would be much cheaper. No more annual wealth tax (on the same value, year after year!) on development. And holding land to parasitically benefit from neighbors improving the neighborhood would become unprofitable. With land no longer a money parking/hedgi…

That's Henry George. I don't understand all consequences yet, except one, that the wealthy and powerful object to it because it hurts them and so the Land Value Tax is rarely introduced. Even if it gets introduced, it will abolished soon thereafter.

> That's Henry George.

Yes! He was a very clear thinker. Refreshing when you find someone who manages to see things as they are, right in front of you the whole time, independent of the numbing filter of unexamined cultural momentum.

--

> the wealthy and powerful object to it

The poor, whose property to land ratio is high (even if they individually own very little in absolute terms), subsidize the rich whose property to land ratio is low (even if in absolute terms they own more). And it compounds, because this makes land, like Bitcoin, a place to park money and reap the rewards of other people's growing population demand for something limited, and other people's investment in development. So housing for anyone but the rich becomes more and more of a financial challenge. And market warping mechanisms are tried, like rent freezes, etc. But somehow, simply taxing the precious limited resource (land) more, and dropping the tax on developing useful property on land, which is what is required to increase housing, rarely gets tried. And as you say, quickly gets reversed when it happens.

So many ways the poor, middle class, and not so rich, pay the taxes of the very rich.

And the very rich do a very good job of framing things, so the want-to-be rich believe they need to keep things that way -- to their own, and everyone else's, detriment.

Post reply on HN